Algeria: Human Rights

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they raised the concerns of Human Rights Watch, the Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme, the World Organisation against Torture and Amnesty International, outlined in their joint letter of 14 March to the European Union, at the European Union-Algeria Association Council on 20 March; and, if so, what answers they received from the Algerian representatives at this meeting.

Lord Triesman: We were disappointed that the planned EU-Algeria Association Council was postponed and we hope that it will be reconvened very soon.

Arms Trade

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which states have so far agreed to the principle of an international treaty on the arms trade.

Lord Triesman: Countries from the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa regions expressed support for a treaty in the June 2005 Nairobi declaration. In October 2005, EU Foreign Ministers added the EU's voice to support for an international treaty to establish common standards for the global trade in conventional arms, and called for the start of a formal negotiation process at the UN at the earliest opportunity. Commonwealth heads of government, meeting in Malta in 2005, also formally stated their support for work on such a treaty to commence at the UN. Numerous other countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Benin, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guinea, Holy See, Iceland, Mali, Norway, Senegal, Switzerland and Turkey have also expressed support. We will continue to work with international partners to generate support for a process to build momentum towards our objective of initial discussions in the UN later in 2006.

Arms Trade

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they last had discussions with the Government of the United States about the content of an arms trade treaty.

Lord Triesman: We have regular discussions with the US Government on a range of such issues, which have included the arms trade treaty. Most recently, our permanent representative to the conference on disarmament discussed the initiative with US counterparts in Washington on 27 February. We will continue to work with international partners to generate support towards our objective of initial discussions in the UN later in 2006.

Arms Trade

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether more rapid progress would be made in agreeing an arms trade treaty if it were limited to small arms and ammunition.

Lord Triesman: We envisage a treaty covering all conventional arms and see no reason to restrict this only to small arms and ammunition. Although small arms are at the core of the problem, larger conventional arms are also responsible for fuelling conflict and instability, and have been used for repressive purposes. We believe that all conventional arms need to be included in the treaty to make it a fully effective tool against the irresponsible trade in arms.

Belarus

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are making representations to the government of Belarus following the recent assault by police officers on the leader of the opposition in that country; and whether there is a common European Union position on the matter.

Lord Triesman: The presidency of the EU issued a statement on 2 March, on behalf of all member states, expressing deep concern over the forceful arrest of Alexander Kozulin and a group of his supporters. The EU stressed that it expected Belarus to adhere fully to its obligations and commitments as a participating state of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, safeguarding the right of assembly and the freedom of expression, and to guarantee the personal security of all presidential candidates before, during and after the elections.
	Following the release of Alexander Kozulin, the presidency issued a further statement in the week before the presidential election in Belarus, calling on the Belarusian Government to ensure equal campaigning rights for all candidates. The EU also urged the Belarusian authorities to allow the Belarusian people to exercise their right of assembly and freedom of expression and to take all necessary measures to guarantee the personal safety of peaceful demonstrators and all presidential candidates.
	The full texts of both EU declarations are available on the presidency's website at www.eu2006.at/en/News/CFSP—Statements/March/0203Belarus.html and www.eu2006.at/en/News/CFSP—Statements/March/0803belarus.html.

British Coal Compensation

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the sum total of all expenditure incurred to date in regard to the British Coal respiratory disease litigation, broken down between payments made to (a) Capita and its predecessors; (b) medical service providers; (c) all other contractors; (d) the solicitors' co-ordinating group; (e) individual claimants' solicitors; (f) Vendside Limited; (g) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and (h) defendants' solicitors and counsel; and what compensation has been paid to the claimants.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The total expenditure incurred in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation is as follows, as categorised above. However, figures for a), c) and h) cannot be split between schemes so include expenditure incurred on both.
	(a) £125.4 million; (b) £310 million; (c) £26.4 million—predominantly records storage and collection;
	(d) £15 million, excluding payments made in relation to individual claims;
	(e) £640.4 million, excluding the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and Vendside;
	(f) and (g) £21.6 million (Vendside handles claims submitted by the UDM); and
	(h) £23.1 million.
	Compensation of £1,778 million has been paid to claimants.

British Coal Compensation

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the sum total of all expenditure incurred to date in regard to the British Coal vibration white finger litigation, broken down between payments made to (a) Capita and its predecessors; (b) medical service providers; (c) all other contractors; (d) the solicitors' co-ordinating group; (e) individual claimants' solicitors; (f) Vendside Limited; (g) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and (h) defendants' solicitors and counsel; and what compensation has been paid to the claimants.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The total expenditure incurred in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation is as follows, as categorised above. However, figures for a), c), and h) cannot be split between schemes so include expenditure incurred on both.
	(a) £125.4 million; (b) £31 million; (c) £26.4 million—predominantly records storage and collection;
	(d) £6.4 million, excluding payments made in relation to individual claims;
	(e) £88 million, excluding the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and Vendside;
	(f) and g) £6 million (Vendside handle claims submitted by the UDM); and
	(h) £23.1 million.
	Compensation of £1,248 million has been paid to claimants.

British Coal Compensation

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the projected date by which all claims under the British Coal respiratory disease litigation will have been settled; and what is the estimated cost that will be incurred, broken down between (a) Capita and all other contractors; (b) the claimants' legal costs; (c) the defendants' legal costs; (d) the internal costs of the Department of Trade and Industry; and (e) compensation which remains to be paid to the claimants.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We envisage that the main bulk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claims will be settled by 2009. However, the department remains unable to set firm end dates for the COPD scheme due to the number of current unknowns and uncertainties surrounding the scheme. These are being considered in court.
	The estimated total costs to be incurred, as categorised above, are:
	(a) £590 million 1 for administrative costs, including claims handling and consultancy;
	£357 million for medical costs and £50 million for records management;
	(b) £1196 million;
	(c) £44 million;
	(d) around £12 million; and
	(e) £2,451 million.
	1 Claim handling, records management and defendants' legal costs cannot be broken down. These figures represent the total estimate for both schemes.

British Coal Compensation

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the projected date by which all claims under the British Coal vibration white finger litigation will have been settled; and what is the estimated cost that will be incurred, broken down between (a) Capita and all other contractors; (b) the claimants' legal costs; (c) the defendants' legal costs; (d) the internal costs of the Department of Trade and Industry; and (e) compensation which remains to be paid to the claimants.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The general damages of the vibration white finger scheme is in run-down phase, with most claims expected to be settled by the end of July 2006. We are confident that the vast majority of services claims will be settled by the end of 2007.
	The estimated total costs to be incurred, as categorised above, are:
	(a) £590 million 1 for administrative costs, including claims handling and consultancy, and £30 million for medical costs and £50 million for records management;
	(b) £134 million;
	(c) £44 million;
	(d) around £12 million; and
	(e) £1,640 million.
	1 Claim handling, records management and defendants' legal costs cannot be broken down. These figures represent the total estimate for both schemes.

British Coal Compensation

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the estimated staffing, administrative and related costs incurred by the Department of Trade and Industry in regard to (a) the British Coal respiratory disease litigation, and (b) the British Coal vibration white finger litigation.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The figures are:
	DTI staffing costs for (a) and (b) are around £9 million.
	Claims handling and administrative costs, including consultancy services, for both schemes are £316 million.
	Other costs incurred in respect of (a) the British Coal respiratory disease litigation and (b) the British Coal vibration white finger litigation, are:
	Plaintiffs' legal costs: (a) £615 million and (b) £98 million;
	Defendants' legal costs: (a) and (b) £23 million;
	medical costs: (a) £310 million and (b) £31 million; and
	records management: (a) and (b) £26 million.

EU: Budget

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McKenzie of Luton on 2 March (WA 92), whether the difference in United Kingdom contributions to institutions of the European Union and to principal bodies of the Commonwealth reflects the relative benefits of those organisations to the United Kingdom.

Lord Triesman: Yes. The EU and the Commonwealth are very different organisations, both of which deliver distinct benefits to the UK.

EU: Constitution

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their pledge to hold a binding referendum on whether or not the United Kingdom should adopt the European Union constitution is still in force; whether that pledge applies to the shortened version of the constitution now under discussion by the German and French Governments; and, if so, whether the pledge will remain in force for the remainder of this Parliament.

Lord Triesman: My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that, if there is a constitutional treaty to vote on, we will hold a referendum. It is not our practice to comment on the likely views of other member states. This Government believe that it is important to focus on delivering the policy priorities agreed at the Hampton Court summit last year.

EU: Membership

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 15 February (WA 184) what prosperity has been brought to the United Kingdom through membership of the European Union which would not have accrued under free trade with the single market; and
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 15 February (WA 184), how many of the 3 million jobs they estimate to be linked to the European Union would be lost if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union and retain its free trade with the single market.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The EU benefits the UK in more ways than just the gains arising from free trade with the single market, through having an influence over wider EU affairs.
	Although we believe around 3 million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU, it is not possible to estimate the employment impact of leaving the EU under the scenario suggested, which we doubt could be achieved and would certainly not be in the UK's interests.

EU: Mercury

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have made of the impact upon the United Kingdom barometer industry of the proposal by the European Commission to ban the use of mercury in temperature and weather gauges; and what representations they have made to the Commission regarding the proposal.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Officials of Her Majesty's Government are currently in discussion with industry to determine the scale of the impacts on their businesses, but the full impact of the EU strategy on mercury and the restrictions on marketing and use have not yet been fully quantified, as the Commission has only recently (February 2006) published its revised proposal.
	Subject to the final text of the restriction on marketing and use, manufacturers of barometers (weather gauges) may still be permitted to continue to repair and sell second-hand equipment, continue to place new equipment on the market for scientific use, and continue to export new equipment outside the EU25, provided that the instruments are shipped empty and filled from locally sourced mercury when they are commissioned.
	Although fever thermometers containing mercury will be banned, thermometer manufacturers might also be able to realign their markets to the scientific sector. Officials of Her Majesty's Government have lobbied the Commission in support of the UK barometer manufacturing industry and invited one of the manufacturers to join them in direct representation to the Commission and MEPs.

European Defence Agency

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to encourage the new European Defence Agency to start the process of integrated co-operation on new projects, including the plans for force protection formulae.

Lord Drayson: The Government have been very active in encouraging and supporting the European Defence Agency's (EDA) efforts to ensure that there is integrated co-operation on projects and initiatives. In particular, we have actively supported work on a long-term vision to identify the capabilities that will be important to support the European security and defence policy (ESDP) in the future. Ministry of Defence (MoD) experts also participate in meetings of the EDA's integrated development teams (IDTs) to help direct the agency's efforts towards projects within those capability development areas. Similarly, MoD experts participate in the EDA's capability technology boards, which consider the research and technology projects that may be required to support capability needs identified by the IDTs.
	On the specific subject of force protection, the EDA has launched an exercise to derive, from capability needs within this area, specific research and technology projects. MoD experts participated in the first EDA workshop on this subject in March and plan to participate in the second workshop in April.

Extraordinary Rendition Flights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the remarks by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 8 March (HL Deb, col. 847) concerning rendition flights, what have been the responses of the United States authorities to the statements made to them on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Lord Triesman: As my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham said on 8 March (Official Report, col. 847), we are clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or airspace, including our overseas territories, without our permission. I also refer the noble Lord to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary's Answer to the honourable Member for Sheffield Hallam (Nick Clegg) on 6 February in the other place (Official Report, cols. 784-5W).

Housing: Multiple Occupation

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have received from local authorities looking to extend their houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme to smaller properties under Section 56 of the Housing Act 2004.

Baroness Andrews: The Government have not yet received any formal representations from local authorities looking to use the discretionary powers provided by Section 56 of the Housing Act to extend houses in multiple occupation (HMO) licensing to smaller properties that will fall outside the scope of mandatory licensing. These powers are expected to come into force in April 2006.
	However, in December 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister carried out an information-gathering exercise aimed at providing further understanding of the impact of the HMO licensing proposals in the Housing Act on local authorities. As part of the exercise, local authorities were asked for their views on how they might use the discretionary powers provided in the Act to apply additional licensing to smaller HMOs in their areas.
	The following 28 authorities indicated their intention to make use of the additional licensing powers in their areas:
	London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
	London Borough of Hillingdon
	Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
	London Borough of Haringey
	West Lindsey District Council
	Cheltenham Borough Council
	Birmingham City Council
	East Riding of Yorkshire Council
	Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
	Alnwick District Council
	Manchester City Council
	Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
	West Oxford District Council
	Hull City Council
	South Oxfordshire District Council
	Edmundsbury Borough Council
	Preston City Council
	Hynburn Borough Council
	Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
	Breckland District Council
	Sevenoaks Borough Council
	Torbay Council
	Huntingdonshire District Council
	Hereford Council
	Southampton City Council
	Sunderland City Council
	Redditch Borough Council
	Worcester City Council
	Blackpool Borough Council
	Guildford Borough Council
	In addition, the following local authorities indicated that they might consider applying additional licensing to smaller HMOs in their areas in the future:
	Canterbury City Council
	North West Leicestershire District Council
	Rushmoor Borough Council
	Lancaster City Council
	Nottingham City Council
	Exeter City Council
	Torridge District Council
	The Government are aware that the IDeA, government offices and the anti-social behaviour unit of the Home Office recently wrote to all local authorities to find out their intentions about introducing additional HMO licensing in their areas. They are now waiting for responses from the authorities.

Iran: Human Rights

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they are making to the government of Iran about the hanging of Mr Hojjat Zamani, previously abducted from Turkey in 2003, and about recent death sentences, including those on two men aged 18 and a boy of 15.

Lord Triesman: We have serious concerns about the use of the death penalty in Iran. Ministers and officials have pressed the Iranian authorities on many occasions to address this. Disturbingly, we continue to receive reports of the sentencing to death of minors and of executions carried out in public.
	On 16 February, an Iranian newspaper reported that two 18 year-old men had been sentenced to death for raping a 20 year-old female. We will be raising this case with the Iranian authorities and seeking clarification of the ages of the men at the time the alleged offence took place. The imposition of the death sentence for offences committed by those under the age of 18 would violate Iran's freely undertaken obligations under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	We are also deeply concerned by reports that a 15 year-old boy from Isfahan, named Rasoul, has been sentenced to death. We understand that the sentence has been put on hold pending further investigations.
	We are aware of the execution of Hojjat Zamani. At present we have no plans to discuss Mr Zamani's execution with the Iranian authorities.

Iran: Human Rights

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on human rights dialogue with Iran; and what, if any, have been the results.

Lord Triesman: We remain deeply concerned by the human rights situation in Iran. In recent years, there has been a marked deterioration in a number of areas, such as freedom of expression, the sentencing to death of juvenile offenders and the treatment of Iran's religious minorities.
	We continue to use our dialogue with Iran to press the Iranian authorities on human rights policies and cases of concern, and to encourage reform of the institutions and practices that allow violations to occur. Ministers and officials discuss human rights issues with their Iranian counterparts frequently and we also take action through the EU. Regrettably, however, Iran has not agreed to a formal session of the EU-Iran human rights dialogue since June 2004, despite the EU's efforts.

Israel and Palestine: Jericho Prison

Baroness Tonge: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they made to the Israeli Government, formally or informally, before withdrawing their monitors from Jericho prison.

Lord Triesman: The UK and US Consul-Generals issued a joint letter to President Abbas on 8 March 2006, which noted that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) did not come into full compliance with the Ramallah agreement and make substantive improvements to the security of the monitors or come to a new agreement with the government of Israel, we would have to withdraw our monitors with immediate effect. In accordance with our obligations under the Ramallah agreement, our ambassador in Tel Aviv informed the Israeli authorities that we were delivering a letter in these terms on 8 March.
	On 17 and 22 February, our ambassador in Tel Aviv informed the Israeli authorities that we might have to withdraw from the mission due to security concerns. This information was also communicated to the PA initially on 15 December 2005 and on at least five separate occasions after this point. On 10 March our ambassador in Tel Aviv contacted the Israeli authorities to urge that Israel exercise caution if the monitors had to withdraw.
	It was considered too dangerous for our monitors to inform either Israel or the PA of the actual date of withdrawal.

Parliament: Power Commission

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will give effect to the Power commission's recommendation that a concordat should be drawn up between the Executive and Parliament indicating where key powers lie, providing significant powers of scrutiny and initiation for Parliament.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Government welcome the report of the Power inquiry. We will consider the inquiry's recommendations carefully and have committed to provide a structured response to the report.

Railways: First Great Western

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In view of the level of detail contained in the franchise specification issued by the Department for Transport, what scope there is for First Great Western trains to respond to the views of the public in its current consultation on its draft timetable.

Lord Davies of Oldham: First Great Western and the department are now considering the responses received from members of the public to the consultation on the draft First Great Western timetable. A further announcement will be made in due course.

Singapore: Chee Soon Juan

Lord Alderdice: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have made to the government of Singapore regarding the trial of Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, in the defamation case brought by former Singapore Prime Ministers Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong.

Lord Triesman: The Government have not made any representations in this case, which is an internal legal matter in Singapore.

Somalia

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to station a diplomatic mission in Baidoa, or how otherwise they intend to communicate with the government of Somalia.

Lord Triesman: We have no plans at present to open a diplomatic mission in Baidoa. The UK has regular and frequent contact with the transitional federal government of Somalia through our High Commission in Nairobi, and occasional visits to Somalia by officials.

Somaliland

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide assistance to the government of Somaliland to enable them to comply with veterinary requirements that would enable exports of livestock to other countries in the region.

Baroness Amos: The UK has no plans to provide such assistance, as the United Nations Development Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Bank have been engaged on this issue for several years in the region.
	They have been developing a veterinary testing regime and institutions to satisfy countries of the safety of Somali livestock and have made representations to Gulf states on this. Ways of overcoming the livestock ban are also being looked into by the productive sector cluster working group as part of the Somali joint needs assessment, which covers Somaliland. We expect, alongside other donors, to support the outcome of this assessment as part of an overall reconstruction package for Somaliland.

Taxation and Benefits: Overpayments

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What criteria are used to determine whether overpayments to vulnerable households should be remitted (a) by HM Revenue and Customs (tax and pension credits); (b) by Jobcentre Plus (income support, jobseeker's allowance and disability benefits); and (c) by local authorities (housing and council tax benefits).

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is a longstanding principle that, where it is cost effective to do so, recovery is sought of all overpayments.
	The Department for Work and Pensions seeks to recover social security overpayments where customers innocently or otherwise provide incorrect information in relation to their claim or fail to notify a change of circumstances. In addition, the department seeks to recover overpayments that are not recoverable under social security legislation—for example, paid twice for the same period. This is on the basis that customers have no right to retain money that they should not have received. The department's policy is to seek recovery in the cases where it is reasonable to expect the customer to have been aware of the overpayment.
	Rates of recovery are set to avoid undue hardship and take account of the financial and personal circumstances of the customer. In exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State can exercise his discretion to waive recovery of an overpayment to avoid severe hardship or where the recovery would be against the public interest.
	With regard to housing and council tax benefits, the local authority must decide whether an overpayment is legally recoverable and, if it is, whether it should actually recover it. This decision, as well as the method and rate of recovery, is the responsibility of the local authority. The authority must have regard to the customer's financial circumstances and avoid causing hardship to either customers or any of their dependants.
	The policy of HM Revenue and Customs on recovery of tax credit overpayments is set out in its Code of Practice 26, What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit? The criteria used to determine whether overpayments of tax credits should be remitted are contained in Code of Practice 26.